London has been battered by 50mph winds that have felled trees and caused travel chaos. Powerful gusts swept across the capital as the Met Office issued a yellow "be aware" weather alert for most of the country.

Tory press will not make life easy for Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg has discovered within a month what life is going to be like on the press roller-coaster. He has gone from zero to hero, back to zero and — as of this morning's national newspapers — there is more than a hint that he has no chance of regaining hero status. He is, in the eyes of many editors and commentators, damaged goods.

The Liberal-Democrat leader agreed a coalition deal yesterday with David Cameron's Conservatives against a background of abuse from the Tory-supporting papers.

When it looked the day before as if he was about to maintain Labour's Gordon Brown in power, some editors sought to turn Clegg into a devil, transforming young Nick into Old Nick. The right-wing attack-dog quartet — The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph, backed up by the more measured Times and the Financial Times — leapt at his throat.

As far as the Mail was concerned, he was "two-faced" and his party was "double-dealing". The Telegraph spoke of Clegg's "incomprehensible connivance" and that his stitch-up with Brown effectively disenfranchised England. The Lib-Dems were "in effect, holding the country to ransom in pursuit of a new voting system".

The Express referred to "weasel Clegg" in a headline, accusing him of "switching effortlessly from kingmaker to assassin" by knifing Cameron. In the Sun's view, Clegg was "more at home with the creeps and crawlers of the Labour Party". (One can't help but recall that it is barely six months since the paper was supporting that very party's creeps and crawlers).

The commentators were even more outspoken. The Sun's distinguished associate editor, Trevor Kavanagh, wrote: "Now we see the Lib-Dems for what they really are double-crossing, two-faced shysters, who would sell their mothers for political gain."

Peter Oborne, the Mail's most lucid political commentator, was outraged by the "untrustworthy, treacherous and deceitful" Clegg for having dared talk to Labour. "At a time of desperate financial crisis," he wrote, "the leader of the Liberal-Democrats has put the interests of his party before his country."

The Times leading article's language may have been less colourful, but it argued that the Lib-Dems had "demonstrated they are constitutionally unready to the serious business of government". In talking to Labour Clegg's "volte-face" bordered on the dishonourable. But the paper did couch its concluding criticism in terms that left the party a way to make amends (in its eyes and those of the Tory party).

"Do they [the Lib-Dems] seek to form a viable and legitimate coalition by taking up Mr Cameron's offer or do they indulge themselves with the fantasy of an alliance that would lack any semblance of moral authority? It is not obvious they are up to it."

Well, of course, it transpired that they were up to it. The double-crossing deceitful weasel came through for Cameron. Not that today's papers were prepared to turn scorn into praise. While lauding the incoming Prime Minister, they warn Clegg he should beware. He is on their radar and he is now a marked man.

The Telegraph leader affected to ignore Clegg by mentioning him only in passing. Its columnist, Simon Heffer, was not so reticent in his criticism of the Lib-Dems. "The absurdity of this party has long been clear to many of us," he wrote. "It is composed of Leftists of the sort who find the Labour Party a little common; and in part by people who agonise permanently over whether to join the Conservatives." He did not say which of these applied to Clegg.

The Sun thought Clegg had "finally" done the right thing "but only after tarnishing his reputation". It also reminded him that he "should recognise he is the junior partner in the Government". The Express said: "This newspaper has no doubts about the calibre of Mr Cameron but deep-seated ones about Mr Clegg and his colleagues."

But it was the Mail that gave the greatest indication of what lies ahead for Clegg and his party should there be any attempt at making life difficult for the new Conservative Government. It called him "the Madame Fifi of British politics, fluttering his eyelashes at one suitor before sneaking off in secret to play footsie with another".

Looking towards another general election, the leading article added: "If the coalition breaks down within a matter of months, the Mail hopes the electorate will not forget the duplicity of the Lib Dems at its formation."

The Mail's nervousness about the Government's minor partner is clear from a double-page news analysis headlined "Can Clegg keep a lid on rebellion?" and a piece about the day's topsy-turvy events with the headline, "Lib-Dems are behaving like every harlot in history can we ever trust them?"

From the other side of the political fence, there was a measure of support for Clegg. The Guardian thought he had played his hand well, and the Daily Mirror used the same analogy by referring to his "winning the game of political poker".

But Clegg and his colleagues, as they rub their eyes and wonder if it has all been a dream while adjusting to the idea of speaking from the Government benches, would do well to look closely at today's papers. They should not be fooled into thinking that television — the medium that certainly set the agenda for this election — sets the agenda between elections.

It is true that TV enjoyed a good election. The televised leaders' debates were at the heart of the campaign. Sky TV was directly responsible for the breaking of the story about Brown's "bigot" gaffe.

There were no newspaper scoops throughout the campaign though I must point with due modesty to the fact that the Evening Standard yesterday published a genuine exclusive in breaking the story about Brown's resignation, stopping the presses in the afternoon and getting it on to the streets at 4pm.

It was a reminder of the key role in the daily political process played by newspapers. It is papers, not TV or radio, not Twitter or Facebook, that help to forge the climate of public opinion. It is print that provides broadcasters with their daily news menus. It is journalists working for papers who pick up the rumours and get the stories that make the headlines.

They manage to do this when a single party is in power. With two parties running the country, you can bet that much mischief will be made. And it will be at the expense of Clegg and his Lib-Dems. They will never enjoy right-wing press praise because the Telegraph's Heffer is surely right in predicting that this coalition is merely an interim arrangement.

It means the papers — that is, to all intents and purposes, the Conservative papers — are preparing to fight another election, and Clegg is simply in the way.